Question on legal knife length in Canada

[George Wallace]

...and I never leave the front door without the Swiss Army knife that I've carried in my pocket for going on 20+ years. It seems to suffice in 90% of the tasks I need to use a knife / utility tool for.

Probably wouldn't do for self defense, but then.....I don't go looking for trouble either.......

To sidetrack the subject, but on the topic of self defense, everything available would be like a "Swiss Army Knife" when it comes to self defense.  A rolled up newspaper, a walking stick, a pen, your house/car keys, exacto knife; anything within the realm of your imagination can be used to defend yourself.  The only limits are your imagination.

Other than my army issue Gerber multi-tool strapped to my uniform, I do not need to carry a knife with me everwhere I go not in uniform. 

 

[Bluebulldog]

To sidetrack the subject, but on the topic of self defense, everything available would be like a "Swiss Army Knife" when it comes to self defense.  A rolled up newspaper, a walking stick, a pen, your house/car keys, exacto knife; anything within the realm of your imagination can be used to defend yourself.  The only limits are your imagination.

Other than my army issue Gerber multi-tool strapped to my uniform, I do not need to carry a knife with me everwhere I go not in uniform.

But you'd be absolutely surprised at how many times I'm at a gathering with other folks, and the corkscrew, or bottle opener on my Wenger wind up getting used.......now if Gerber had only thought to put a corkscrew on the issued tool.........you'd probably have occasion to carry it more.

 

[Bluebulldog]

You're still coming across kinda nuts.

Roll of tin foil and folding instructions are in the mail.

 

[George Wallace]

But you'd be absolutely surprised at how many times I'm at a gathering with other folks, and the corkscrew, or bottle opener on my Wenger wind up getting used.......now if Gerber had only thought to put a corkscrew on the issued tool.........you'd probably have occasion to carry it more.

A BIC pen works.  Messy, but you push the cork in......not dig it out.  Champagne corks are another story, but a knowledgeable swordsman has a good method of running the blade along the side of the bottle and then a quick slice and top of bottle and cork are off.      ;D

 

[Jarnhamar]

Roll of tin foil and folding instructions are in the mail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbVGGMi8QGM

She seems to really enjoy her work.

 

[Bluebulldog]

A BIC pen works.  Messy, but you push the cork in......not dig it out.  Champagne corks are another story, but a knowledgeable swordsman has a good method of running the blade along the side of the bottle and then a quick slice and top of bottle and cork are off.      ;D

....and we come full circle.....now all wisnoskij has to do, is tell them he's a somellier.......and he can carry his sword!!

 

[Container]

I had a read through the laws a little, but they are hard to understand. Laws are nto designed to be read or understood by the average person.

One question, as I am reading through it.
What do they mean when they say "Former Prohibited", as in
It is saying that these are not prohibited any longer, but were at some time?

The beginning of that section stated:

The firearms listed in Part 1 of the schedule are prohibited firearms for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition “prohibited firearm” in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.

That means those are still prohibited despite the labeling.

The questions you asked before this were answered well. The intent is what makes a weapon when it comes to little knives. Are you carrying it as a tool? Then its fine in your backpack while you hike. Is it a steak knife in your shirt while you smoke rock? Then its a weapon....and thus concealed.

OK, I browsed it for all pertinent information, all relevent quotes are included below post.

First off, while the document uses “restricted weapon” a lot, it never defines what it means by that.
Specifically this is the only definition it gives:So a restricted weapon is a any weapon that is defined as a restricted weapon by law.... That is a meaningless phrase, and can tell us nothing about what “restricted weapon” means (unless there is another unmentioned document that gives a better description, or a list of these restricted weapons). Note: there is a list of restricted firearms, but there does not appear to be any for generic weapons, at least none mentioned.

But forgetting that, lets assume we are talking about a generic knife that is neither restriced nor prohibited.

My interpretation of these laws.

A knife is a weapon if you intend it as a weapon or deterrent or it was designed as a weapon.
Which seems to me a bad definition. Personally, I would say it needs "primarily" added to that definition. Any and all hunting or survival knife where designed at least partially as a self defensive or even offensive measure against animals, and a person is a subclass of the animals.

You are not allowed to own any weapon if you own it for a "purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence". I have not idea how the law goes about determining what is "dangerous to the public peace" if it is not an offence. If the purpose is not illegal, then why should it be an offence to do it????
Basically, don't do illegal stuff with your knife, and do not even look like you might if you want to play it safe.

You are not allowed to attend a public meeting (not sure that the legal definition of a "public meeting" is) with a weapon, unless you have a lawful excuse.
Seems like a very specific and easily circumvented law.

You cannot conceal any weapon for any reason.

But, the most important point to make is that a knife is not necessarily a weapon.

Summery, according to the letter of the law:
You can own any knife, sword, etc. (minus a very few specifically prohibited ones).
You can go into public with any knife, sword, katana, 13" long blade Khukri (again, minus the few prohibited ones).
You can only conceal a knife if it is not a weapon.
All survival/hunting/wilderness knives are weapons, at least technically in my opinion (though I disagree with the definition).

So if self defence is legal (will read that thread next), self defence should be an acceptable excuse for owning and carrying non-concealed weapons in public.

Note: there are other sections dealing with Search and Seizure, Disposition, and Certificate of analyst that are not relevent to out discussion at this time.

WTF?????

Weapon is defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code. You can carry a sword......as long as its not a weapon. Like youre at Comicon and its part of your outfit or youre transporting it. But if you wear it slung on the back for self defence its carrying a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

I have read up on everything in the self and property defence sections.

In general you are allowed to defend yourself, to the extent that you have to.
And unless it is covered in anouther setion, the law does not even come close to banning you from carrying around weapons to defend yourself. Anyone know where it it supposed to say this? Because everyone has told me over and over again that you are not allowed to carry knives for self defence, but I just read the law and it specifically does not mention that. Is this one of those unwritten laws, or am I just missing something here.

So self defence is legal, carrying weapons in public is legal. So strapping a sword to your back (in a non-concealed way) to defend yourself seems to be considered legal by the letter of the law.

Interestingly, you are not allowed to harm someone trying to take your stuff, unless they "persist". But if they are "forcibly breaking" into your house or "trespassing" you can kill them or do anything else that is necessary immediately.

Oh man. You are commiting an offence under 88 of the Criminal Code unless you can prove that the sword youre carrying in public was a reasonable choice to defend yourself, with just enough force to stop the threat, and the threat you believed against you was also reasonable.

Im not sure where samurai sword would ever fit into that. Where do you live?

So, I might just not be thinking straight. It is possible I missed something, or something that significantly effects the law regarding self defence or weapons is in another section entirely. But it really seems to me that the police enforcement of their law is unrecognisable from the letter of the law. Is there no mechanisms in place to ensure that police action is in accordance, at least generally, with the letter of the law?

Or what am I missing, everything said here by experts seems to not be that the letter of the law says.

My law? The court is who decides if my actions are in accordance with the law. This is very basic- everyone here even with the little disagreement about certain things agrees.

Youre the only guy in the room who thinks he's right......how often does it work out when one guy disgrees with everyone that they are actually correct?

@George Wallace:
For me this has mostly turned into an interesting academic discussion.
Which is not to say that there is not a utilitarian reason.

I like knives, all kinds of knives. And I plan on collecting a little bit and using a lot on my property (there are a lot of of uses for knives on my farm).
But if I am going to own a 12" blade Khukri or even just a belt knife then I better know how to legally transport it through public and what to do if I forget about the blade at my belt and end up in town. Personally, I would love to have a nice survival knive with my at all times, as you never know when you have to cut something open; And like being prepared for anything (when I packed for a Flordia vacation I packed string and zip lock bags, among other thing, and was laughed at for that, but we ended up using both). This preparedness I guess if I was being honest includes a tiny amount of self defence (if I am legally allowed), though I cannot imagine someone my size being a likely target of random violence.

The really annoying part about the law with respect to my specific situation is that pretty much all general knives are easily proven to be weapons by the law's definition. I think they are aimed at a mostly American crowd because their descriptions always talk about using it on others. Take the wonderful Ka-Bar USMC, short. It is the exact length suggested by everyone for a general utility/survival knive (4-6", in this case 5.25") and is in the top of many lists for general utility/survival knives. But it is an american knife and is called a fighting knife for some reason. I guarantee you that some thought was put into the design about using it to cause death and injury.

Hardly interesting or academic. In person you'd have me half convinced you need to go to the hospital and talk to a doctor.

 

[wisnoskij]

Oh man. You are commiting an offence under 88 of the Criminal Code unless you can prove that the sword youre carrying in public was a reasonable choice to defend yourself, with just enough force to stop the threat, and the threat you believed against you was also reasonable.

Thanks for the response.
But you have to agree that all of that is unwritten? Right? The law does not say that, it allows a judge more then enough room to say that fits within the lose confines of that law.

Quoting:
88. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

I assume enough precedent exists that carrying a weapon for self defence to be considered "dangerous to the public peace". But no where is that written is absolute unchallengeable terms.

But interesting you did not even say that all self defensive weapons were not allowed to be carried, that is what I/others have been told many times (I has seen theads that stated in absolute terms that even non-lethal but painful self-defensive weapons are not even allowed to be carried). You are saying that if the self defensive weapon is reasonable then it is perfectly legal, which is very different.

What is reasonable seems hard to judge, it is obvious that a sword seems unreasonable to carry around, but if you actually fear for your life everything becomes reasonable to use. So how are you even supposed to judge what is reasonable precaution for the unreasonable situation of your life being in danger (mostly rhetorical)? I am going to guess that anything that is obviously made for the the purpose or killing/hurting others (in self-defence or otherwise) is considered unreasonable at this time.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Dude keep your knife at home.

 

[Container]

Thanks for the response.
But you have to agree that all of that is unwritten? Right? The law does not say that, it allows a judge more then enough room to say that fits within the lose confines of that law.

Quoting:
88. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

I assume enough precedent exists that carrying a weapon for self defence to be considered "dangerous to the public peace". But no where is that written is absolute unchallengeable terms.

But interesting you did not even say that all self defensive weapons were not allowed to be carried, that is what I/others have been told many times (I has seen theads that stated in absolute terms that even non-lethal but painful self-defensive weapons are not even allowed to be carried). You are saying that if the self defensive weapon is reasonable then it is perfectly legal, which is very different.

What is reasonable seems hard to judge, it is obvious that a sword seems unreasonable to carry around, but if you actually fear for your life everything becomes reasonable to use. So how are you even supposed to judge what is reasonable precaution for the unreasonable situation of your life being in danger (mostly rhetorical)? I am going to guess that anything that is obviously made for the the purpose or killing/hurting others (in self-defence or otherwise) is considered unreasonable at this time.

I agree to no such thing. The rules are outlined in the Criminal Code in the Annotation sections and by case law- made by judges and lawyers. Not police officers. The online reading you are looking at does not contain these sections. Because they are thousands and thousands of pages.

There are weapons like key chain batons and ninja stars that are specifically prohibited. There are others that are not. However- it is generally held that it is unreasonable for the everyday person to think their lives have a reasonable credible threat against them. It is not a blanket "self defense" against everyone real or imagined. Furthermore- there are requirements that you are adequately trained.

The test of reasonable is very easy. If I swapped you out for someone else. Just an everyday person- given the same information would they act in the same manner as you or believe your actions are justified?

It does not matter what YOU believe is real when it comes to carrying weapons. Society must agree. And society, right or wrong, says you call the police and stay home. Not ride the bus with a Masamune strapped to yourself.

 

[ArmyGuy99]

:goodpost:

The Peace Officers in our Country, who enforce the laws, do have the ability to use their head.

I'm from Northern Ontario, it is not uncommon in the rural areas to see people in Canadian Tire with Medium Pocket Knives or Fixed Blades (Not so much anymore) on their belts.  That's because they just came from the farm where these are TOOLS used everyday.  The OPP (usually) know this and do nothing.

Walk into Walmart in Barrie, Toronto, Vancouver etc.. and I guarantee a different response from the local constabulary, regardless of the size.

Unless you have a legitimate LEGAL reason that YOU can explain to the nice Police Man/Woman why you have a knife in your pocket, leave it at home.  Cause at best they'll just seize it.  At worst you'll get a possession dangerous charge or worse.

Ok I'm done  :deadhorse:

 

[wisnoskij]

"If I swapped you out for someone else. Just an everyday person- given the same information would they act in the same manner as you or believe your actions are justified?"

How does that have any basis in law? Doesn't this entire idea go agaisnt the principal of innocent untill proven guilty? People are not allowed to be unique or act differently, without ant proof that this difference endangers anyone?

Would a jodge not have to prove that some specific unique individual carrying a weapon in public is "dangerous to the public peace".
How can a judge even go by statistics, or oppinion. Everyone acts differently, and I cannot see how you can charge someone with a crime because, for example, they are not trained professionals. Since there is no way to prove that you would not act like a trained professional.

Statistics and common sence might say that an average citizen is more likely to hurt himself and other innocents if he lugs around a sammeri sword everywhere, but unless you prove I will I do not see how that does not go agasint the very basis of our laws.

 

[Container]

okay so Im sorry- you arent making sense anymore. I m not trying to be rude but you arent articulating yourself at all.

The answer to this gibberish is yes.

The court decides what is adequate training. They can also determine who is an expert and who is not- even though they arent experts themselves. This is the power we have given the courts.

The test for reasonableness is not up for discussion it is used in almost every court case- given the circumstance was the action reasonable?

Here is the definition:

"A standard for what is fair and appropriate under usual and ordinary circumstances; that which is according to reason; the way a rational and just person would have acted."

Not just how you acted or felt. But how a rational person- or some other ordinary person with the same information in the same situation.

Allow me to answer this for you:

"Since there is no way to prove that you would not act like a trained professional."

Yes I can. I teach use of force. I teach police officers, park wardens, correctional officers arrest and control. I, on a routine basis, see thousands of responses to various situations by a variety of experience levels. I can, without a doubt, tell you that you would not react as a trained professional would. If it was just a matter of showing up and reacting however the mood strikes- no one would need to be trained.

We train because alot of use of force and controlling people, as well as repelling assault, is counter intuitive. Thousands and thousands of repetitions are required to perform these actions. Now add adrenaline. And fear. You will not stumble fuck your way into looking like you knew what you were doing. Even trained people cant manage to react like a trained professional alot of the time. Thats why we have sections making thm liable for exceeding whats reasonable.

You are not prohibited from "arming" yourself for self defence. You are prohibited from concealing the weapon. You are prohibited from arming yourself with a weapon you do not have sufficient training to use, or a weapon specifically prohibited (which is alot of them), provided you have a reasonable concern that you are going to be attacked- and ALSO- that you are competent and that the weapon is appropriate to repell the type of reasonably apprehended attack you are anticipating.

Full stop. Thats it.

 

[wisnoskij]

OK, I understand.
Thanks for the clarifications.